Shattering its own day-one sales records, Activision Publishing, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Activision Blizzard, announced that its highly-anticipated Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 has become the biggest entertainment launch ever with an estimated sell-through of more than $400 million and more than 6.5 million units in North America and the United Kingdom alone in the first 24 hours of its release, according to Charttrack and retail customer sell-through information.

This marks the third consecutive year that the Call of Duty franchise has set day one launch records across all forms of entertainment, something no other entertainment franchise in any medium has ever accomplished. Last year, in North America and the United Kingdom , Activision's Call of Duty: Black Ops had estimated day-one sell-through of $360 million and in 2009, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, set day-one records with estimated sell through of $310 million, according to Charttrack and retail customer sell-through information.

On November 8, 2011, millions of fans attended more than 13,000 midnight openings at retail stores worldwide. According to Microsoft, after just two days, the number of gamers playing simultaneously on Xbox Live set a new peak concurrency record.

"We believe the launch of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is the biggest entertainment launch of all time in any medium, and we achieved this record with sales from only two territories," said Bobby Kotick, CEO, Activision Blizzard, Inc. "Other than Call of Duty, there has never been another entertainment franchise that has set opening day records three years in a row. Life-to-date sales for the Call of Duty franchise exceed worldwide theatrical box office for "Star Wars" and "Lord of the Rings", two of the most successful entertainment franchises of all time."

Eric Hirshberg, CEO, Activision Publishing added, "Call of Duty is more than a game. It's become a major part of the pop cultural landscape. It is a game that core enthusiasts love, but that also consistently draws new people into the medium. It is the most intense, adrenaline pumping entertainment experience anywhere. I would like to thank our incredible teams at Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games for making a brilliant game. But most of all, I would like to thank our millions of passionate fans worldwide. We made this game for you."

Separately, Activision announced this morning that in support and gratitude for the efforts of American servicemen and women, this Veterans Day it donated $3 million to the Call of Duty Endowment, a non-profit, public benefit corporation that seeks to provide job placement and training for veterans. This latest donation will be added to the $2 million that Activision has already donated to the Endowment, which has provided more than $1.5 million in grants and scholarships to veterans' organizations across the country since it was conceived by Bobby Kotick in November of 2009.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is rated "M" (Mature) by the ESRB for Blood and Gore, Drug Reference, Intense Violence and Strong Language and is available now for the Xbox 360 video game and entertainment system from Microsoft, PlayStation3 computer entertainment system, and Windows PC. For more information visit www.callofduty.com/mw3 and www.callofduty.com/elite

What grabbed my attention was the lack of marketing needed to reach such estimated sales. Most of that will in fact be just profit and, won't we subtracted from the amount of money used to market the game.

What grabbed my attention was the lack of marketing needed to reach such estimated sales. Most of that will in fact be just profit and, won't we subtracted from the amount of money used to market the game.

What grabbed my attention was the lack of marketing needed to reach such estimated sales. Most of that will in fact be just profit and, won't we subtracted from the amount of money used to market the game.

The Website for game, has one of those scrolling featured game section like steam, for the week leading up to it's release, every single slot was dedicated to call of duty, Even my local Tesco had a Display dedicated to call of duty

What grabbed my attention was the lack of marketing needed to reach such estimated sales. Most of that will in fact be just profit and, won't we subtracted from the amount of money used to market the game.

It's no wonder they are already working on MW4, they already have the funding for it. It goes to show you that a fun game does indeed sell. And mostly through word of mouth and popularity instead of spending millions on marketing. It looks like, to me, that having fun triumphs anything that is not perceived by the consumer as important.

Battlefield simple can't compete with COD because it targets older player, and we --older player-- just don't have all day sitting around talking about how cool cool things are and hyping ourselves, turning so-so game into the greatest game of all time.

Typical American tardness.

That's why most of 99% of American can't even vote to help themselves against the wealthiest 1%.

Battlefield simple can't compete with COD because it targets older player, and we --older player-- just don't have all day sitting around talking about how cool cool things are and hyping ourselves, turning so-so game into the greatest game of all time.

Typical American tardness.

That's why most of 99% of American can't even vote to help themselves against the wealthiest 1%.

While MW3 doesn't have such issues. Although not perfect their game day launch was pretty typical of what one would expect from a game. Perhaps that may have played a part of why it sold so well and it's still being played by many.

Having said as such, it's not the technical merits of BF3 why it doesn't compete with MW3. Neither was it do to the amount of marketing. It's the perception of how people see products from EA and how they see products from Activision. It appears that they trust Activision more. And so far, they are getting what they are expecting from them. Can the same be said about EA? Or will the response be "you need a 64 bit OS"?

I won't mention any names to protect the innocent, but thanks to a certain news editor, I have this game. I don't think it deserves the bad reputation that a lot of people are giving it because I am having a good time with it. I am spending equal time with this and BF3 and I think that they coexist nicely.

Congrats to Activision for making more money in a day than I'll see in my lifetime.

I believe that many of the elements from BF2 did in fact hurt the sales of BF3. Such as:
-no real squad leader that can give orders/way points
-no commander
-no in game voip
-no in game ping
-way to many assets to unlock
-huge chat box
-flashlight and sun too bright, too much blue tint and the contrast is to high
just to name a few. What I'm getting at is those elements that made BF, BF. Then people had to fight them just to get a broken command rose that doesn't have ammo/medic request. Then they had to fight them to get squads half way decent. You still can't name your own squad, kick/request people to join, etc.
-no mod tools
-no spectator mod
-chat box should be similar to Bf2/BC2 were teammates are one color, squad mates are one color and enemies are another color
-no battle recorder

Although a long list, they did fix the hit registration . But one thing I loved about conquest from BF2 was that you had to capture enemy flags. That is what true conquest was for me. And it was done in a way were you would inevitably come face to face with your opponent. When defending you had the pick of the litter of where you wanted to spawn. This is what the current maps don't offer when in conquest. Although metro comes close it's sectioned off.

While MW3 doesn't have such issues. Although not perfect their game day launch was pretty typical of what one would expect from a game. Perhaps that may have played a part of why it sold so well and it's still being played by many.

Having said as such, it's not the technical merits of BF3 why it doesn't compete with MW3. Neither was it do to the amount of marketing. It's the perception of how people see products from EA and how they see products from Activision. It appears that they trust Activision more. And so far, they are getting what they are expecting from them. Can the same be said about EA? Or will the response be "you need a 64 bit OS"?

A good game in BF3 requires teamwork. People must know what they need to do for it to be fully enjoyable, but that's why BF community like it -- a team based game, and sadly that isn't appeal to younger players (the majority of gamers).

COD - i think you know well what it is

I ignore BF3's bugs because they are bugs, and bugs will always be fixed, and so far in my experiences, all of them have been fixed. I don't like the idea of battlelog, but i don't have problems with it now.

And with the scale of BF3 and its new engine, bugs are to be expected while COD games have been being built in a same engine which is why the game has little to no bug visible.

And because BF3 requires an expensive PC to fully enjoy the game, most people can't really afford that. If you look at the sale figure for the past COD games, most of them were sold on the 360... I'm pretty sure it will be the same with MW3.

It would be fine if they were to sell it at $40 or less as an expansion, but they are not. I'm simple angry at how they do their business and how ignorance people are time after time. Yes i know it's sensible as a business to make money, but we're as consumers must not let them think we're retards.

COD will set an example of what a gamer is because of how successful it is, but do we as gamers really want that? I'm offended.

A good game in BF3 requires teamwork. People must know what they need to do for it to be fully enjoyable, but that's why BF community like it -- a team based game, and sadly that isn't appeal to younger players (the majority of gamers).

COD - i think you know well what it is

I ignore BF3's bugs because they are bugs, and bugs will always be fixed, and so far in my experiences, all of them have been fixed. I don't like the idea of battlelog, but i don't have problems with it now.

And with the scale of BF3 and its new engine, bugs are to be expected while COD games have been being built in a same engine which is why the game has little to no bug visible.

And because BF3 requires an expensive PC to fully enjoy the game, most people can't really afford that. If you look at the sale figure for the past COD games, most of them were sold on the 360... I'm pretty sure it will be the same with MW3.

It would be fine if they were to sell it at $40 or less as an expansion, but they are not. I'm simple angry at how they do their business and how ignorance people are time after time. Yes i know it's sensible as a business to make money, but we're as consumers must not let them think we're retards.

COD will set an example of what a game is because of how successful it is, but do we as gamers really want that? I'm offended.

In order to have team work you have to have a set of guidelines in order to have complete cohesion.
1. Structure of command. That means having a commander that order squad leaders and squad leaders to order the grunts.
2. Communication. People need a means to communicate with each other while in the same squad in order to understand what objectives will be accomplished. For this to work properly the commander gives order to the squad leader and/or the squad leader delegates them to his squad mates while he stands back being a spawn point.
3. Clear objectives that are not sectioned off depending on what portion of the map you are on. Or so far away requiring a vehicle that is not readily available. That means that flag/mcom placement should be in such a way that gives a clear line of sight of where most of the team is heading for.

Ignoring the bugs BF3 has is part of the problem and why it simply didn't do well against MW3 it was competing against. An obvious bad mistake. Fit and polish goes a long way of someone opinion of the game. It, imo, has a greater impact on a person's perception then just the game's graphics. Unless, that is also an issue, cough high contrast.

And lets be real, many don't like or simply hate battlelog and origin. Telling people that they can only join a server via web browser is simply not something that should have happen and I doubt we will see that in BF4.

To end, people just don't care about a game's engine as proven by MW3 sales. What they care about is how intuitive and fun a game is to play. You don't need to open other application to play it and you aren't missing standard features everyone looks for (voip, in game ping to name a few).

In order to have team work you have to have a set of guidelines in order to have complete cohesion.
1. Structure of command. That means having a commander that order squad leaders and squad leaders to order the grunts.
2. Communication. People need a means to communicate with each other while in the same squad in order to understand what objectives will be accomplished. For this to work properly the commander gives order to the squad leader and/or the squad leader delegates them to his squad mates while he stands back being a spawn point.
3. Clear objectives that are not sectioned off depending on what portion of the map you are on. Or so far away requiring a vehicle that is not readily available. That means that flag/mcom placement should be in such a way that gives a clear line of sight of where most of the team is heading for.

Ignoring the bugs BF3 has is part of the problem and why it simply didn't do well against MW3 it was competing against. An obvious bad mistake. Fit and polish goes a long way of someone opinion of the game. It, imo, has a greater impact on a person's perception then just the game's graphics. Unless, that is also an issue, cough high contrast.

And lets be real, many don't like or simply hate battlelog and origin. Telling people that they can only join a server via web browser is simply not something that should have happen and I doubt we will see that in BF4.

To end, people just don't care about a game's engine as proven by MW3 sales. What they care about is how intuitive and fun a game is to play. You don't need to open other application to play it and you aren't missing standard features everyone looks for (voip, in game ping to name a few).

I agree with most of your points, but staying at one place because it's comfortable doesn't mean we can't try to get something better. I hate COD not because it's a bad game, but because of Activision's way of abusing it.

Majority speaks, but that's not necessary always right. We used to believe earth is flat.

I think I've stated my points in the earlier post, so there's nothing more for me to say.